THE NATIONAL SHIPBUILDING RESEARCH PROGRAM
SHIP PRODUCTION COMMITTEEFACILITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTSSURFACE PREPARATION AND COATINGSDESIGN/PRODUCTION INTEGRATIONHUMAN RESOURCE INNOVATIONMARINE INDUSTRY STANDARDSWELDINGINDUSTRIAL ENGINEERINGEDUCATION AND TRAININGOctober 1999NSRP 0526N8-96-3THE NATIONALSHIPBUILDINGRESEARCHPROGRAMApplication of Industrial EngineeringTechniques to Reduce Workers’Compensation and EnvironmentalCosts - Deliverable JU.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYCARDEROCK DIVISION,NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTERin cooperation withNational Steel and Shipbuilding CompanySan Diego, California
Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188Report Documentation PagePublic reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number.1. REPORT DATE2. REPORT TYPEOCT 1999N/A3. DATES COVERED-4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE5a. CONTRACT NUMBERThe National Shipbuilding Research Program, Application of IndustrialEngineering Techniques to Reduce Workers’ Compensation andEnvironmental Costs - Deliverable J6. AUTHOR(S)5b. GRANT NUMBER5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER5d. PROJECT NUMBER5e. TASK NUMBER5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)Naval Surface Warfare Center CD Code 2230-Design Integration ToolsBldg 192, Room 128 9500 MacArthur Blvd Bethesda, MD 20817-57009. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORTNUMBER(S)12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release, distribution unlimited13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES14. ABSTRACT15. SUBJECT TERMS16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:a. REPORTb. ABSTRACTc. THIS PAGEunclassifiedunclassifiedunclassified17. LIMITATION OFABSTRACT18. NUMBEROF PAGESSAR12419a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSONStandard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
DISCLAIMERThese reports were prepared as an account of government-sponsored work. Neither theUnited States, nor the United States Navy, nor any person acting on behalf of the UnitedStates Navy (A) makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respectto the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information contained in this report/manual, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in thisreport may not infringe privately owned rights; or (B) assumes any liabilities with respect tothe use of or for damages resulting from the use of any information, apparatus, method, orprocess disclosed in the report. As used in the above, “Persons acting on behalf of theUnited States Navy” includes any employee, contractor, or subcontractor to the contractorof the United States Navy to the extent that such employee, contractor, or subcontractor tothe contractor prepares, handles, or distributes, or provides access to any informationpursuant to his employment or contract or subcontract to the contractor with the UnitedStates Navy. ANY POSSIBLE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND/ORFITNESS FOR PURPOSE ARE SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMED.
DELIVERABLE JWORKSHOP PRESENTATION
WORKSHOP SUMMARYTo communicate the findings of the project “Application of Industrial EngineeringTechniques to Reduce Workers’ Compensation and Environmental Cost,” threeworkshops were held. The first workshop was held at the Radisson AdmiralSemmes Hotel in Mobile, AL October 8 & 9, 1998. The second was held at theRadisson Hotel in Portland, ME, October 15 & 16, 1998. The third was held atNational Steel & Shipbuilding Company in San Diego, CA, October 22 & 23,1998.The workshops were scheduled in central locations throughout the country, tofacilitate attendance by all of the major shipyards and repair facilities. Theseworkshops were advertised through NSnet and an e-mail discussion group ofmore than 500 members. The advertising for these workshops was coordinatedthrough the University of Michigan by Pamela Cohen. There were an additional367 flyers mailed to members of the NSRP panels (3, 8, 9, 5 and 7) by theProject Engineer. The advertising and mailings occurred during the months ofAugust and September to notify participants in a timely manner. A copy of theworkshop announcement flyer is included in this report.The workshop was conducted by Freddie Hogan, Project Engineer, BriennWoodds, Manager of Training and Development, Karen Wasson, Training andDevelopment Department and Michelle Lee, Environmental Department. Theworkshop agenda and workshop material are included in this report.The workshops were well received by the attendees and provided a valuableopportunity to share the lessons learned on this project.NSRP 0526Deliverable J
Application of IndustrialEngineering Techniques to ReduceWorkers' Compensation andEnvironmental CostsFreddie HoganNational Steel & Shipbuilding Co.
Industrial EngineeringDefinition:Integration of human, information, material,monetary and technological resources to producegoods and services; ensuring workers have thecorrect tools and training to get the job doneefficiently, safely and with high quality.
Techniques Process PlanningErgonomicsProcess ControlTrainingIndustrial SafetyOperations Research
Project OverviewApproach The project was divided into components– Workers’ Compensation costs– Environmental issues
Workers’ CompensationApproach A safety process improvement team waschartered to address all aspects of workers’compensation costs Safety PIT identified high frequency or highrisk of severity work areas.– Three areas were identified for furtherevaluation to reduce injuries and costs.– A sub-PIT of salaried and hourly workers wasformed to review and analyze the causes ofinjury for each area
Project Overview Central process improvement teamestablished with department heads from:–––––––Safety DepartmentPaint & BlastHuman ResourcesTrainingSteel ErectionElectricalFinance
Workers’ Comp CostBackground 17 million spent in 1996 Paint & Blast department spent 1.4M in 1996 on hand,wrist, shoulder injuries– Repetitive motion injury rate at 15%– On-Block injury rate at 11%– Dept. injury rate at 38% Electrical department spent 130,000 from 1996 to 1998on back injuries– Injury rate for cable crew at 127% Steel erection area averaged 1.4M yearly on back injuries– Injury rate for steel erection at 42%
Workers’ CompensationSub PITs Paint & Blast Electrical Steel Erection
Paint & Blast Sub PIT Initial Team–––––––––Department Mgr.FacilitatorIndustrial HygienistSafety Dept. Mgr.Quality AssuranceProduction SupervisorsHourly EmployeesGeneral SupervisorEngineer Research Team––––––FacilitatorEngineerGeneral SupervisorProduction SupervisorsIndustrial HygienistQuality Assurance
Paint & Blast Dept.Charter The Process Improvement Team (PIT) wasestablished to study the causes of hand, wrist andarm injuries while performing mechanical cleaning. The following stages of construction were analyzed:–––––Sub AssemblyAssemblyOn-BlockOn-BoardBlast Pit
Paint & Blast DepartmentAction Plan Reviewed 1994-1997 workers’comp. data––––injuries vs. years of serviceinjuries by age groupbody part injuredrepetitive injuries by type Reviewed First Report of Injury from safety dept. Brainstormed ideas23 ideas selected6 areas chosen for study– Weighted vote on all priorities
Paint & Blast Department1996/1997 Paint & Bla st Department Injury Rate Per 100 EmployeesRate Per 100 Employees12108619961997420ArmElbowFingerHandBody Part InjuredShoulderWrist
Paint & Blast Department1996/1997 Paint & Blast Department Repetitive Injuries Per 100Employees121086199619974Type of reDislocation0Contusions2AbrasionsRate Per 100 Employees14
Paint & Blast Department1996/1997 On-Block Injury Comparisons Per 100 EmployeesRate Per 100 rHandBody Part Injure dShoulderWrist
Paint & Blast Sub PITAction Plan Conduct employeeinterviews– employees with hand/arm/wristinjuries Conduct observations– proper vs. improper handlingtechniques– ergonomics Review of power tools &equipment– buffers & grinders– gloves– abrasives Review mechanicalcleaning process
Paint & Blast DepartmentBuffer/Grinder IssuesOld Tool Three shift operation Manufacturer redesign Grease/bearing issues Improper tool usage Icing on buffers Wire wheels/danger Buffer/Grinder too largeNew Tool Lightweight Ergonomic Handles Faster speed Durability Smaller design
Paint & Blast DepartmentAbrasive IssuesDifferent abrasives needed with new equipmentLighter abrasives to match new buffers/grindersBetter abrasives provide less time of equipment usage foremployees5 degree req’d instead of 15 degreesLight weight back-up padsWould eliminate two steps from current processLonger usage than current abrasives
Paint & Blast DepartmentPower Tool Training Norton Abrasive Company Mandatory for any industry that usesabrasives– Two day training sessions– All production shifts involved– 20 painters & blasters per class
Paint & Blast DepartmentGlove Issues Existing Equipment–––––NASSCO suppliedCottonLeatherOther OptionsSafeguardTechnologies– Customized design– Therapy Specialistsupport /thermal insulationLong life/durabilityComfort/fitAnti-vibrationNon-slip surfaceErgonomic designWrist support
Paint & Blast DepartmentSpray Equipment Equipment–––– Compliance IssuesAirless guns– Transfer efficiencyConventional guns– Solvent usageElectrostatic guns– High solids paintsAir-assisted airless– Waste reductionguns Costs– HVLP guns– Equipment costs– Air-assisted– Compliance costselectrostatic guns– Plural component units
Paint & Blast DepartmentCompliant Spray Equipment Electrostatic––––––PrinciplesPrimers & metallic coatingWaterborne coatingsCompatible paint solventVersatilityOperator comfort, ergonomic considerations
Paint & Blast DepartmentCompliant Spray Equipment Electrostatic usage areas– Exterior surfaces; bulkheads, decks, side shells,interior storage spaces, cargo areas, etc. Air-assisted airless usage areas– In all areas where current usage of airless gunsare used
Paint & Blast DepartmentCompliant Spray Equipment High volume low pressure guns– Can be used in areas where current usage ofconventional spray is used Air-assisted airless electrostatic guns– More versatility than regular electrostatic gunsto spray areas where Faraday cage effect is ofconcern
Productivity and TransferEfficiency RankingProductivityLowHighAir rlessTransfer EfficiencyLowHighAir tatic
Paint & Blast DepartmentCompliant Spray Equipment Plural component units usage and benefits-Some restriction on location & placement-Use in immediate areas of paint operation– Reduce manpower required to replenish spray pots– Utilizes less paint– 60% solvent reduction– Less space required– 50-70% more efficient
Paint & Blast Department Transfer efficiency %15-30%50-75%70-90%
Paint & Blast DepartmentEye Injury Issues High frequency of first aid injuries Usage of full face cartridge respirators vs.goggles and eye glasses Reduced set-up by 30 minutes per painter Reduced safety hazards because fewerairlines attached to employee Major contributor eye injury reduction indepartment
Paint & Blast DepartmentAccomplishments in 1997 Generated cost savings of 1.2MRepetitive motion injury reduction of 87%On-block injury rate reduction of 55%No compensation cases for eye injuriesDesign of new anti-vibration gloveLighter, ergonomically improved powertools for paint & blast department Reduction of CTD’s by 70%
Electrical Sub PIT Team Membership–––––Team LeaderSafety RepresentativeProduction SupervisorsWorking ForemanLeadperson
Electrical Sub PITCharterTo analyze the causes of sprain and straininjuries among electrical employees and todevelop methods of prevention
Electrical Sub PITAction Plan Brainstorming to determine– Root cause analysis– Aggravating conditions that contribute to sprain andstrain– Identify internal and external factors Reviewed research material Reviewed workers’ compensation andsafety department data
Electrical Sub PITBrainstorm Results Root causes of sprain/strain injuries––––Surge of effortBeyond range of motionBiomechanicsDiminished range of motion with age
Electrical DepartmentAnalysis External Factors––––––Outside distractionsEmotional problemsLack of sufficient restLack of trainingBody sizePre-existing medicalconditions– Sedentary lifestyle, etc. Internal Factors––––Cable pullingLifting objectsExtended reachingWorking in awkwardpositions and crampedspaces– Prolonged effort
Electrical Sub PITAction Plan Workplace issues:– Inaccessibility of work spaces– Design issues ErgonomicsEquipmentTrainingEmployee hiring process
Electrical Sub PITAction Plan Worksite study of cable crewInterviewsObservationsQuestionnaireStretching program
Electrical DepartmentResults New Cable Puller– Assisted in manufacturer with design forshipboard use– Elimination of individuals needed to pull cable Implemented job rotation Ergonomic Training– Therapy specialist– Fisher Safety E.L.A.T.E. Training Program– Industrial Hygienist
Electrical DepartmentResultsBack Belt Study No injuries reported among each of the test group Airbelt is a much better back brace for lifting and pulling Training and awareness the key to a successful programBack belts don’t prevent injuries.Properly trained employees do, with combination ofback belt and back training
Electrical Sub PITAccomplishments Cable crew injury ratedecreased:– 18.2% in 1996– 3.6% in 1997– 2.4% current in 1998 Cable crew injury costdecreased– 170,000 Electrical dept. injuryrate decreased:– 2.45% in 1996– 0.5% in 1998 No workers’ compcases for electricaldept. in 1998 Additional dept. costdecrease– 18,000
Electrical Sub PITAdditional Accomplishments Man hours savings for 1 puller: 22,888/yr. Return on investment for cable puller:– 801,064 (for one puller)By eliminating a process, at-risk workpractices are eliminated and increasedefficiencies are realized
Steel Erection Sub PIT Team members–––––Five hourly workersFacilitatorDepartment ManagerProject engineerEngineer
Team Charter Review injury data from 1995 to present Select re-occurring injury– Causes pain and suffering– Significant cost impact on the company Analyze causes of injury Develop recommendations to reduce injury Assist in the implementation ofrecommendations with co-workers
Steel Erection Injury d/WristKneeOtherShoulderLower LegElbow/ArmFingerEarsFoot/ToeAnkleNeckEyes1Thigh
Steel Erection Back Injuries by ck InjuriesCordCerv.SpinalSpinal CordNeckSoft TissueUpper BackLower Back0.00Cerv. Disc100,000.00Cerv.VertebraeAmount In Dollars500,000.00
Steel ErectionNumber Per TradeClass1995 to 1997 Steel Erection Department ClaimsFirst WelderTrade ClassP.WelderShipw right
Tools Used Job hazard analysis Cause and effect diagram Behavioral observation and feedbacksystem Observation data sheet
Process Used DO IT– Define– Observe– Intervene– Test
Cause and Effect ialsPeopleEquipment
Insufficient planningby supervisors andworkersBad liftingpracticesRisk takingLiftingunassistedTakingShort cutsNo trust in workerjudgementBehaviorStress / lack ofsupervisor inputReworkand ECNsRushingMental andphysical conditionPeopleTightschedules
Observation ChecklistObserverLocationSafeBend knees and use legsKeep back straightKeep load close to bodyLift slowly and smoothlyGet help with heavy loadsUse tools/equipment to liftBuild a bridgeDateUnsafe
Intervention Methods Photos– Safe lifting practices– Unsafe lifting practices Presentation Sub PIT members conducted meetings ateach site Proper lifting training– Video– Peer conducted
Observation ResultsBend knees and use legsKeep back straightKeep load close to bodyLift slowly and smoothlyGet help with heavy loads7/97 - 9/9712/97 - 3/98Percent SafePre-Intervention Post-Intervention44%79%47%69%56%70%54%76%60%71%Use tools/equipment to lift51%73%Build a bridgeN/A84%Cumulative Total51%71%
Steel Erection Back Injury k injuries/month
Recommendations Expand PIT to other departments & gaincooperation of fellow workers Incorporate back injury prevention intonew hire orientation Utilize experience from this PIT towardthe implementation of company-widebehavior-based safety program
Benefits Using ergonomics to reduce lower back injuries,hand, wrist and shoulder injuries. Better tools and equipment Training Techniques for effective observation Effective team building skills
Summary Different ApproachTeam StructureTrainingManagement Support– Cost– Time & Effort
ACHIEVING ATOTAL SAFETY CULTURETHROUGH BEHAVIORALOBSERVATION ANDFEEDBACKNSRP WORKSHOPProject #N8-96-31998
National Steel andShipbuilding Company
Company DemographicslNational Steel and Shipbuilding Company is a majorship design, construction and repair companylModern industrial facility encompassing 147 acreslWorkforce of approximately 4,500Ÿthree levels of direct supervision– working foreman (bargaining unit employee)– production supervisor (salaried employee)– general supervisor (salaried employee)
Workshop ObjectivesUnderstand the importance of using abehavioral science approach in creatinga total safety culturel Identify the components of a behavioralobservation and feedback processl Practice an observationl Practice giving and receiving feedbackl
AgendallllllA Total Safety Culture OverviewŸ What it isŸ Why it is importantMotivation - how it affects youThe Observation and Feedback ProcessSupervisor ResponsibilitiesGiving and Receiving FeedbackNASSCO’s Implementation Approach
The Characteristics of aSuccessful Total Safety CulturennnSafety is held as a value by all employeesEach employee feels a sense of responsibilityfor the safety of their co-worker as well asthemselvesEach employee performs “Actively Caring”Ÿ Each employee is willing and able to “gobeyond the call of duty” for others
Values, Intentions andBehaviorsCautioning co-workers about performing unsafe acts100%Percent Agreement with Survey Statement90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%S h o u ld(Va lu e )W illin g( In t e n t i o n s )Do(B e h a v io r)
Safety Triangle1EnvironmentPerson2Equipment, Tools, Machines,Housekeeping, Heat/Cold,EngineeringKnowledge, Skills, Abilities,Intelligence, Motives,Attitude, PersonalityBehavior3Putting on PPE, Lifting property, Following procedures,Locking out power, Cleaning up a spill,Sweeping floor, Coaching co-workers
Focus: Accident PreventionFatalitySerious InjuryMinor InjuryTotalSafetyCultureNear MissAt-Risk Work Practices
Developing Safe nsciouslyIncompetentUnconsciouslyIncompetent
Direction Is NOT
Compliant Spray Equipment High volume low pressure guns – Can be used in areas where current usage of conventional spray is used Air-assisted airless electrostatic guns – More versatility than regular electrostatic guns to spray areas where Faraday cage effect is of concern
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. 3 Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
